Mr. Speaker, I want to ask specifically about this issue of people who go into supervised injection sites being offered an alternative in the context of going in. I understand this is one of the Senate amendments that the government is rejecting. It is also a part of previous legislation.

Those who defend supervised injection sites generally do so on the basis that there is still hope and still an effort to put people on a path to recovery, and yet the government seems allergic to having specific language in the legislation that would ensure that people were at least offered a step on that path to recovery. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can explain this allergy. Why, when we have these supervised injection sites, should we not at a minimum insist that people be offered some kind of an alternative when they are going in?